Libby, Cheney, Rove civil suit dismissed: According to this MSNBC story, the civil suit that former CIA operative Valerie Plame filed against the senior Bush administration officials has been thrown out by a federal judge. According to MSNBC News;
U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds and said he would not express an opinion on the constitutional arguments. Bates dismissed the case against all defendants: Cheney, White House political adviser Karl Rove, former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
Plame's attorneys had said the lawsuit would be an uphill battle. Public officials are normally immune from such lawsuits filed in connection with their jobs.
[....]
While Bates did not address the constitutional questions, he seemed to side with administration officials who said they were acting within their job duties. Plame had argued that what they did was illegal and outside the scope of their government jobs.
"The alleged means by which defendants chose to rebut Mr. Wilson's comments and attack his credibility may have been highly unsavory, " Bates wrote. "But there can be no serious dispute that the act of rebutting public criticism, such as that levied by Mr. Wilson against the Bush administration's handling of prewar foreign intelligence, by speaking with members of the press is within the scope of defendants' duties as high-level Executive Branch officials."
Carpetbagger has some interesting details regarding Judge Bates. First, Judge Bates was named to the federal bench by George W. Bush. Bates was also a prosecutor on Ken Starr's Whitewater team investigating then-president Bill Clinton, and finally Bates threw out a lawsuit filed by the General Accounting Office to reveal the identities of industry executives who were involved in Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.
Top 'Attorneygate' investigator: No 'blind faith' for the White House; Raw Story is reporting that the House Judiciary Committee has voted 7-3 to rule that the Bush White House assertion of executive privilege in the U.S. attorney scandal was "not legally valid." Raw Story reports;
During the proceedings, a top House Democratic investigator of the firing of nine US Attorneys said that the White House's latest moves were not consistent with the current system of government in the United States. Another top Democrat accused the White House of turning over 'inaccurate' information about Karl Rove's role in the attorney firings.
The chair of the subcommittee that has authorized subpoenas in the investigation said that the White House was not deserving of 'blind faith.'
According to Rep. Linda Sanchez, "The White House is asking Congress and the American people to simply trust on blind faith that the documents are appropriately being kept secret....Our system of government does not allow the White House to demand this kind of blind faith and secrecy." Sanchez is the Chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law. But it gets better here. Back to the Raw Story article;
Rep. Sánchez then issued a ruling declaring that the White House's assertion of executive privilege over documents sought in subpoenas issued to former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and the Republican National Committee was not legally valid. The grounds for the ruling largely echoed a similar ruling delivered last week after former White House Counsel Harriet Miers refused to appear before the committee.
In a Tuesday letter sent to Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan, Conyers warned that the party organization may face contempt proceedings if it fails to abide by Rep. Sánchez's ruling today.
"If the RNC...engages in 'unilateral action' by simply refusing to comply with a House subpoena absent a court order, the refusal to produce the documents called for could subject Mr. Duncan to contempt proceedings," Rep. Conyers wrote.
A similar warning was issued regarding Bolten.
The House Judiciary Committee has ratcheted up the heat against both the Republican National Committee and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten--if you do not comply with the House subpoena requests, then the House will file contempt charges. I don't know whether the House can make the contempt charges stick on Bolten, not with the U.S. Supreme Court packed with hardline conservatives. And don't forget that the House also has contempt charges to consider filing against former Bush counsel Harriet Miers for her absence of showing up to testify on the attorney scandal.
REPORT: Iraq War To Cost $550 Billion By October; Think Progress has the story here;
According to a new Congressional Research Service report, the war in Iraq has cost $450 billion to date. Further, if Congress approves the Bush administration’s latest supplemental funding request, the total cost of the war will exceed $550 billion by October 1 of this year — fully ten times greater than the Bush administration naively predicted in February 2003.
The report also details the costs of the war in Afghanistan — $127 billion — and other Department of Defense War on Terror expenditures — $28 billion. The CRS also notes approximately $5 billion dollars that cannot be “allocated.” In total, the “Global War on Terror” has cost $610 billion.
That is over a half trillion dollars that this administration will have wasted on this Iraq war. And let's not forget that money for this war is still being budgeted through emergency supplemental funding.
The full report can be read here.
Broad New Exec. Order Targets Iraq-Related Finances: This story scares me. On July 17, 2007, President Bush signed an executive order giving him the right to seize property and assets from U.S. citizens who are supposedly aiding terrorists or the Iraqi insurgency. According to TPM Muckraker:
In a little-noticed executive order issued on Tuesday, President Bush directed the Treasury Department to block the U.S.-based financial assets of anyone deemed to have threatened "the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq" or who "undermin(e) efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq."
The order empowers Treasury, in consultation with the State and Defense Departments, to target those individuals or organizations that either "have committed, or ... pose a significant risk of committing" acts of violence with the "purpose or effect" of harming the Iraqi government or hindering reconstruction efforts. It applies to "U.S. persons," a category including American citizens. It had not previously been disclosed -- and still hasn't -- that U.S. persons are abetting the Iraqi insurgency, nor that Iraqi insurgents have property in the United States, raising questions about who in fact the order targets.
"The part where they reserve lots of discretion to themselves is the list of conditions that goes beyond determination of acts of violence. 'Threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq,' that could be anything," says Ken Mayer, an expert in executive orders and a University of Wisconsin political scientist. "Think of the possibilities: it could be charities that send a small amount of money (to groups linked to) the insurgency, or it could be the government of Iran that has assets in the U.S. and has money that flows through a U.S. bank or something like that."
The order permits the targeting of those who aid someone else whose assets have been blocked under the order -- wittingly or not.
This scares me because it gives this criminal organization in the Bush White House the ability to seize assets of U.S. citizens, who oppose the war, to be labeled as harming the Iraqi government, or aiding and abetting the Iraqi insurgency. We've seen how the Pentagon is labeling Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton's criticisms as reinforcing "Enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," and that such criticisms "Unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks." It sounds to me like Senator Clinton is harming the Iraqi government. Therefore, the Bush administration is giving itself the right to seize Senator Clinton's assets because of her criticisms against this administration's disaster of a war. And if the possibility of Senator Clinton's assets being seized is too far-fetched, then how about the seizure of assets of liberal bloggers who have criticized the Bush administration on Iraq? Or anti-war groups? Or Democratic organizations like MoveOn.org? Or writers, journalists, filmmakers, former veterans--anyone who publicly criticizes this administration's pro-war policy? This administration has shown itself to break the law in personally attacking its critics of the war. Who is to say that the Bush administration will not use this tool for its own revenge? This is another attack on our civil liberties. According to TPM Muckraker:
The scope of the order has raised civil-liberties concerns. "Certainly it is highly constitutionally questionable to empower the government to destroy someone economically without giving notice," says Bruce Fein, a Justice Department official in the Reagan administration. "This is so sweeping it's staggering. I've never seen anything so broad that it expands beyond terrorism, beyond seeking to use violence or the threat of violence to cower or intimidate a population. This covers stabilization in Iraq. I suppose you could issue an executive order about stabilization in Afghanistan as well. And it goes beyond even attempting violence, to cover those who pose 'a significant risk' of violence. Suppose Congress passed a law saying you've committed a crime if there's significant risk that you might commit a crime."
The entire executive order can be found here. I'm also posting this order in its entirety:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, as amended (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)(IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)(NEA), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code,
I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States of America, find that, due to the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by acts of violence threatening the peace and stability of Iraq and undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq and to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people, it is in the interests of the United States to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 of May 22, 2003, and expanded in Executive Order 13315 of August 28, 2003, and relied upon for additional steps taken in Executive Order 13350 of July 29, 2004, and Executive Order 13364 of November 29, 2004. I hereby order:
Section 1. (a) Except to the extent provided in section 203(b)(1), (3), and (4) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(1), (3), and (4)), or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the date of this order, all property and interests in property of the following persons, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons, are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense,
(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section include, but are not limited to, (i) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order, and (ii) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.
Sec. 2. (a) Any transaction by a United States person or within the United States that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.
Sec. 3. For purposes of this order:
(a) the term "person" means an individual or entity;
(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization; and
(c) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.
Sec. 4. I hereby determine that the making of donations of the type specified in section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) by, to, or for the benefit of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by section 1 of this order.
Sec. 5. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that, because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render these measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13303 and expanded in Executive Order 13315, there need be no prior notice of a listing or determination made pursuant to section 1(a) of this order.
Sec. 6. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government, consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order and, where appropriate, to advise the Secretary of the Treasury in a timely manner of the measures taken.
Sec. 7. Nothing in this order is intended to affect the continued effectiveness of any rules, regulations, orders, licenses, or other forms of administrative action issued, taken, or continued in effect heretofore or hereafter under 31 C.F.R. chapter V, except as expressly terminated, modified, or suspended by or pursuant to this order.
Sec. 8. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right, benefit, or privilege, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, instrumentalities, or entities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
July 17, 2007.
Treasury: Exec. Order "Filling in the Cracks" of Insurgent Financing; Here is the Bush administration's response to the executive order that President Bush signed allowing the U.S. government to seize assets of American citizens. From TPM Muckraker:
Tuesday's broad executive order on freezing Iraq-related financial assets is solely intended to target supporters of the Iraqi insurgency, Treasury Department spokeswoman Molly Millerwise tells TPMmuckraker. If U.S. residents and citizens have their assets frozen by the department, it will be because they're actively abetting a panoply of insurgent and militia groups.
Previously, Treasury hasn't had the authority to target the finances of insurgent groups in Iraq aside from al-Qaeda affiliates and former Saddam Hussein regime elements. The order now provides what Millerwise calls "seamless coverage." The department is in the process of compiling a list of organizations, entities and individuals covered by the executive order, and it will include "Shia militia groups linked with Iran, Sunni insurgent groups with sanctuary in Syria and some of the indigenous Iraqi insurgent groups." Millerwise would not specify precisely which groups will find their way onto Treasury's list, but stated unequivocally that the organizations will be made public.
While some civil libertarians have raised questions about the broadness of the executive order, Millerwise says it lists a "perfectly legitimate" set of criteria for asset seizure, and that U.S. persons shouldn't fear designation by the order if they aren't supporting insurgent organizations. "Be assured that the individuals and entities we add to this list are in full faith acting in an aggressive, violent and reckless way in financing the insurgency," she says "These things are strongly vetted, going layers and layers back. (A group) donating money to orphans getting swept up in this doesn't seem to be a valid concern."
Millerwise adds that the language of the executive order was an "interagency effort," and that it "falls in line with the language found in these types of executive orders" -- a point disputed by the University of Wisconsin's Ken Meyer, an executive-order expert, who says that "this has the kind of things that jump out" in terms of broad executive discretion.
There's no timetable on when Treasury will publicize which insurgent groups fall under the order; and it will be an ongoing process, with groups added as necessary, Millerwise says. An added benefit of the publicity, she adds, is that foreign financial institutions often voluntarily comply with blocking assets of organizations banned in the U.S., and so insurgent-linked finance wouldn't just be frozen within the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department.
I'm sorry, but the administration's PR-spin of their claims that they will protect Americans' civil rights doesn't really reassure me.
No comments:
Post a Comment